(I also ask this of the more-mainstream right)
Defense against an overreaching government is definitely a good _thought_. Now, referring to pragmatism versus idealism [a debate in which I personally wish to side with reality]: Joe Schmoes deterring a heavily armed government with their handful of guns [even if the Joe Schmoes are allowed powerful guns such as AK-47's and M-16's] doesn't seem realistic. Furthermore, that concept as it stands today in people's minds may even provide a false sense of security. However, I suppose it did make sense in the 1700s, where the disparity between civilian 'hardware' and military 'hardware' wasn't as severe.
I don't want that false sense of security, and I don't want guns causing other problems after being approved of so strongly for these reasons.

Then again, it reminds me of the arguments against drug control which liberals tend to make which I also agree with: It does seem clear that strict prohibition or restriction is not really helping.

(I also ask this of the more-mainstream right)
Defense against an overreaching government is definitely a good _thought_. Now, referring to pragmatism versus idealism [a debate in which I personally wish to side with reality]: Joe Schmoes deterring a heavily armed government with their handful of guns [even if the Joe Schmoes are allowed powerful guns such as AK-47's and M-16's] doesn't seem realistic.

And? Should we just drop our firearms and accept our deaths and defeat without resistance in such a case?
And it's not about the equipment, it's about the numbers. If even half of the adult citizens of this country had a legal high powered firearm the government would think twice about messing with the people.

Also, do you think there is anything wrong with citizens owning weapons such as AK-47's and M-16's (full-auto or otherwise)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalJester

Furthermore, that concept as it stands today in people's minds may even provide a false sense of security.

As opposed to having no firearms therefore having no security?
Let's say someone breaks into your home intent on robbing, raping, or murdering you.
Why would you want to wait the four to six minutes for the police to come save you, when you could protect yourself, your family, and your property with an adequate firearm and the training that goes with owning one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalJester

However, I suppose it did make sense in the 1700s, where the disparity between civilian 'hardware' and military 'hardware' wasn't as severe.

Now the state says "you can't have these firearms because the criminals use them to break laws".

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalJester

I don't want that false sense of security,

Fine, don't own any firearms. But stop infringing upon my rights to own them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalJester

and I don't want guns causing other problems after being approved of so strongly for these reasons.

The only people who commit crimes with firearms are criminals. Yet the politicians take away the rights and safety of the law-abiding in their pathetic attempts to stop the criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalJester

Then again, it reminds me of the arguments against drug control which liberals tend to make which I also agree with: It does seem clear that strict prohibition or restriction is not really helping.

Because they think "getting rid of the guns" or "making it harder to get guns" will stop the criminals from breaking the law. All the while they ignore why the criminals are committing crimes.

(I also ask this of the more-mainstream right)
Defense against an overreaching government is definitely a good _thought_. Now, referring to pragmatism versus idealism [a debate in which I personally wish to side with reality]: Joe Schmoes deterring a heavily armed government with their handful of guns [even if the Joe Schmoes are allowed powerful guns such as AK-47's and M-16's] doesn't seem realistic. Furthermore, that concept as it stands today in people's minds may even provide a false sense of security. However, I suppose it did make sense in the 1700s, where the disparity between civilian 'hardware' and military 'hardware' wasn't as severe.
I don't want that false sense of security, and I don't want guns causing other problems after being approved of so strongly for these reasons.

Then again, it reminds me of the arguments against drug control which liberals tend to make which I also agree with: It does seem clear that strict prohibition or restriction is not really helping.

Rhodesia, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Spain, Indonesia, India, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen: On and on and on. All of these are countries where your "poorly armed" locals have successfully at differing times in history in the modern era, taken up guns and destroyed far more well armed military powers, in recent decades China, the USSR, and the United States have all LOST wars to groups of native fighters who have few weapons compared to the massive firepower, technology and numerical advantages they faced off against. The United States is busily losing its two current conflicts, having spent a decade and the national treasury to do so against a bunch of local goat farmers, (truth hurts). History has clearly shown that the current monster on the block, be it England, or Spain, or Germany, or Russia, or us, always eventually gets their comeuppance.

Secondly, all that massively powerful, highly capable technology may well make conventional resistance seem futile, but it carries with it the seeds of its own destruction, COSTS. While the Muslims currently fighting in the Near East may not be able to directly affect the use or effectiveness of these machines, a war taking place inside America WILL. The government requires money to fund its toys, guns and butter, troops need care for, machine guzzle resources and supplies. In WWII Germany possessed the most advanced military hardware, but had no means to support their manufacture and operation. ME262's the best plane in the war, sat on the ground lacking parts, fuel and pilots, while Flying Fortresses massed overhead. In the 1980s, the USSR had nuclear missile submarines rotting at the docks, advanced jet aircraft being carted off to third world purchasers for hard currency, and conscripted troops begging food in the streets as some trainees had actually starved to death while on military duty.

So, you see when the SHTF, as they say on the boards, the monetary system that's breaking down now under the weight of the minor skirmishes in the orient, will completely collapse. No food, no money, no gas, equals your big fancy M1 tank sitting in a depot being cut up for scrap, if you can find torches to scrap them with and a foundry that still operates. The big fancy military devours cash and resources at a rate unseen before in history. Only an economically wealthy economy can even hope to maintain or deploy such resources. The secret there is obvious, once an internecine conflict begins within the continental United States, the markets and banking system will scream to the bottom so fast it makes 1929 look like a minor dip. The food, retail, energy, water and communication systems in the U.S. are all heavily dependent on the NOT system of integrated transportation, (Nick of Time). Cities and Urban centers, which house millions of people have NO natural resources and no means of self provision. Their food, water, power and goods are all produced and transported to these urban deserts from the fly over hinterlands, or foreign producers overseas.

America is far MORE vulnerable than even the USSR was. Having destroyed our own economic viability and outsourced our physical ability to produce heavy industrial materials and such for ourselves, when the cash economy crashes, especially if during a civil war, there will be no way to get our foreign neighbors to send us what we need to live, let alone run 50 million dollar remote aircraft. In a frighteningly short amount of time, the so mighty armies of the Government would be reduced to looting and pillaging brigands scrapping over food and water. Those who are healthy, armed, and prepared will succeed. 90% of the populace isn't even in the game yet. They're dog food.

Just look how well the Iraqi and Afghani civilians held/hold off the American Military. A heart, a rifle and a healthy dose of cunning can overcome braindead zogbots (no matter how technologically superior) any day of the week in my books.

Even if you lose it's better than just bending over and accepting your fate.

I adore my firearms! I will not have this take away my right as free White woman! 1968, individuals were admited of to the direct mail of order firearms. 1968, individuals was admited to order to acquire handguns mail order . 1968, individuals engage in private sale handguns.1968, individuals under age 21 could buy handgun, and individuals under age 18 could buy shotgun or rifle.Pre- 1968, lonely psychopathic individuals did not accomplish massacre in fashion they do today. . The partisans said it was time for the 'judicious' laws of gun control , and made a promise they were going to make everybody more safe. After this laws we somewhere north 100 mass shooting since then, anyone feels more safe? The reaction the last acts of violence in order to pass gun control laws which have since then, as proven to aggrandize the likelihood of the types of attacks we were made a promise these laws would prevent. Another side, laws in states reestablishing right to bear armaments for alone defense indeed made people more safe. In state with right to-carry laws, the extent of multiple sacrifice shooting fell 60%. Death and damages from multiple-sacrifice shooting fell even more - average 78% - as remaining cases tended to include fewer sacrifices for assault. almost four decade history beginning with 1968 proven, false the promises of the Jewish communist crowd of prohibition of Guns. There is much documentation framers of constitution what make it clear that this is individual right. Founding fathers say about the fact this rights concerns inalienable and individual right. First amendment is short and right to the article!. Fathers say the United states unconditionally protects people right to bear armaments !

Joe Schmoes deterring a heavily armed government with their handful of guns [even if the Joe Schmoes are allowed powerful guns such as AK-47's and M-16's] doesn't seem realistic.

History proves this as incorrect. I can provide sources if need be. It's not always Joe Schmoes either, military personal take sides as well. I can provide sources for that too.

Quote:

Furthermore, that concept as it stands today in people's minds may even provide a false sense of security. However, I suppose it did make sense in the 1700s, where the disparity between civilian 'hardware' and military 'hardware' wasn't as severe.
I don't want that false sense of security, and I don't want guns causing other problems after being approved of so strongly for these reasons.

The only difference between civilian guns and military guns is that civilian guns are semi-auto. Other stuff such as AH-64 helicopters with TV guided missiles, F-16 aircraft, and other such things is a different story though.

To many of us, the 2nd Amendment isn't just about "protection from the government", but is most relevant to personal and family protection. People use guns everyday across America to protect themselves against murders, robbers, home invasions, thugs... all the time. Gangster criminals kill ordinary people all the time during robberies, muggings, home invasions. And those ordinary people can defend themselves with a gun of their own. I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop. I hear it all the time how it takes cops to show up at a scene 10-20 minutes after 911 is called. When seconds count, the police are minutes away!

Lots of people have 'assault rifles' for home protection and even hunting. Firearms are also a hobby for many many people, as much as a hobby as modifying and restoring cars (and that hobby is huge everywhere).

Are you basically saying that civilians should not be able to own guns, but police and military can?

Gun control advocates say people shouldn't have guns, but they sure do want one of their own when faced with an armed thug on a dark street!

Do you think there is anything wrong with citizens owning weapons such as AK-47's and M-16's (full-auto or otherwise)?

I figured that even rather powerful firearms wouldn't be enough. Because of the...

Quote:

Originally Posted by metalman862

Other stuff such as AH-64 helicopters with TV guided missiles, F-16 aircraft, and other such things

I can't see commoners affording and being able to use that really-heavy-duty stuff, even less so than I can see effective firearms use.

I can see them being useful in situations relating to street crime, so by all means allow and encourage firearms usage for this reason. That I'm sold on, the fight-tha-gubmint thing, not so much.

To continue the drug analogy, certain currently-banned drugs have beneficial purposes, which can be shut out because of blanket condemnation triggered by the nonbeneficial purposes.

However, I don't want people to think they can handle Uncle Sam because they can handle street thugs; the "false sense of security" I refer to is _thinking_ they can do so. I don’t want the “Uncle Sam” reason overinflating public approval of guns.

Part of my pragmatic worldview means no pointless acts of resistance. If somebody else wants to take the chance, think they're making a difference, fine, that's their business. I'm just making clear why it's not mine.

Popular enough, and the control laws are ineffective enough, that the item in question is still quite prevalent.The illegality of the situation leads to its own problems, problems that could be managed by government sanctioning.

It may seem petty to make life-and-death decisions based on the fact that some people enjoy hunting and target-shooting.

We’ve all heard that giving up liberty for security is a bad idea, and doesn’t liberty include the amusements that define our lives as well as Serious Freedoms™?

That reminds me, I suppose in the case of guns we ought to apply the same common-sense control applied to other dangerous things.

Street crime definitely happens, but I want hysteria over that no more than I want hysteria over da gubmint.

It does seem clear, though, that our current control.

However, I’m (gasp) more afraid of wingnut fellow citizens than a wingnut government.

Just another "impartial" jew beast who'll only expedite the tyranny of the bell-curve and the legitimization of deviance.

I've stated it numerous times, ultimately the crux of the matter is firearms. They'll continue to infringe on your rights by calling them privileges. They'll continue to steal your money to fund their filth. They'll continue to force any activity deemed "unfashionable" into your home (i.e. smoking--whilst homos parade down your street!). They'll continue to ensure you'll submit to "diversity". They'll continue to enforce laws to the expectation of equal outcomes--and they'll all smile whilst doing it. Same goes for "congress".

Guns? Those are the ultimate equalizer. Without those these parasites and turds cannot completely fulfill and legitimize their creeping tyrannical goals.

I wonder why the left fails to have this mass interest in firearms. As such, gun diffusion seems to be a partisan issue dressed up as supposed general principles. Everybody does that, including me...and you.